Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945 OP(CRL.) NO. 709 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 177/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SADIQ AGED 27 YEARS S/O. PALLIPARAMBIL SAGEER PANJAMPILLI DESOM KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680681 GIRIJA K GOPAL K.N.VIGY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 SHILNA AGED 24 YEARS W/O.SADIQ, S/O. PALLIPARAMBIL SAGEER PANJAMPPILLI DESOM, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE D/O. PULLANI VEETTIL UMMAR, PATHIYASSERI DESOM S N PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK , THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680664 2 FAIDA FATHIMA, D/O. PALLIPARAMBIL SADIQ PANJAMPPILLI DESOM, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE THIRSSUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SHILNA, PIN - 680664 MUHAMMED SHAFI M T.RASINI(K/000090/2017) AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.(K/000828/2021) THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023 The challenge in this original petition is against the interim order of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents, his wife and child, at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. While admitting this original petition, an interim direction was issued, requiring the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each.
2. Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. From the arguments advanced, it appears that
the impugned order was passed without the parties filing affidavits of disclosure as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. [2021 (2) SCC 324]. Hence, the order cannot be sustained. Although various other contentions are raised, I refrain from delving into those contentions, since any finding on merits by this Court would have an impact on the final order to be passed by the Family Court. In my opinion, for the present, the arrangement as directed by this Court while granting the interim
order can be continued and the Family Court is hereby
directed to decide the maintenance case at the earliest. In the result, the original petition is allowed. Ext.P5
order is quashed and the Family Court is directed to
take earnest efforts to pass orders, either in the petition for interim maintenance or the maintenance case itself at the earliest, after affording the parties opportunity to file affidavits of disclosure and to let in evidence. Till orders are passed by the Family Court in the manner directed above, the petitioner shall continue to pay monthly maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/13-6 APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 709/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT1 A TRUE COPY OF MC 177/2020 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN EXHIBIT P 2 . A TRUE COPY OF MP 353/2020 IN MC 177/2020 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA EXHIBIT P 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION TO MP COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.5.2022 IN I.A.2/2022 IN G.O.P. 521/2022 ON THE FILES OF EXHIBIT P 5 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.5.2022 IN MP 353/2020 IN MC 177/2020 ON THE FILES OF EXHIBIT P 6 A TRUE COPY OF MP 403/2022 IN MP 353/2020 IN MC IRINJALAKKUDA RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE